Archive for the ‘customs’ Category

Islamic Republic of Pakistan has let down women again by surrendering to the fundamentalists!

Girls can be excanged for debts, debt recovery and other proceedings: Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter mentioned as IRP) has been notorious for pedophile activities carried on in Madrasas by Mohammedan clerics. Though, many reports came, arrests made, but, prosecutions have been limited and the involved maulanas, kajis and Mullahs escaped. While the boys are exploited in this way, the girl-children are sexploited in a different way, under the guise of “marriages”. Child marriage in Pakistan is connected with tradition, culture, and customary practices. It sometimes involves the transfer of money, settlement of debts or exchange of daughters (Vani/Swara or Watta Satta) sanctioned by a Jirga or Panchayat (council of elders from the community)[1]. It is estimated that 21% of girls in Pakistan are married before the age of 18. When the question of “non-Muslims” come, the “marriages” become atrocious, horrible and ending with prostitution, as Islamic law can be applicable for such activities under mutah and other forms of marriages. Thus, by and large the Islamic law has been used only to sexploit the girls and women.

IRP obligation to end child marriage and legislations stopped by the clerics: As awareness is created and educated women have started questioning such practices, IRP has pledged to end child marriage by 2030 as part of a global initiative. Based on this, IRP gets many funds and monetary packages from the global organizations. Yet, the legislations brought to curtail, ban and stop the Child marriages and pedophile activities have been stopped by the Mohammedan clerics under the pretext of Quran, Hadis and Shariat. In other words, the funds received for the purpose have not been producing desired effect, instead, opposite results show the other-way happenings there. According to a Gallup survey released in October 2017, approximately 7.3 million people in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were married before the age of 16, and an additional 15.5 million Pakistanis got married before they were 18. Gallup calls this “child marriage” for its survey purposes[2]. The observation made, “Child brides often drop out of school and become pregnant, and these early pregnancies have a greater risk of ending in maternal or infant death,……….Child brides are also at greater risk of sexual violence, abuse, social isolation and exploitation.” said Gallup[3].

The bills were stalled in 2014, 2016 and so on: A bid to ban child marriage in Pakistan utterly failed, after the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the legislation “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous.” The bill didn’t even move past the first stage in the legislative process, The Express Tribune reports[4]. It was almost immediately pulled by Pakistan Muslim League party’s Marvi Menon following condemnation from CII, whose job it is to advise the legislature on whether bills are compliant with Sharia law. In this case, the bill clearly violated Islamic law as tradition holds marriage as acceptable when a girl hits puberty[5]. Sheerani had opposed the proposed amendments, saying they were contrary to Islamic teachings and laws. “Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah,” he had said while backing his arguments with relevant laws and a few references from the Holy Quran and Hadith. According to Islamic laws, marriage can be solemnised when a girl attains puberty, Sheerani claimed[6]. After CII’s declaration, a parliamentary committee rejected the legislation solely for religious reasons and Menon subsequently pulled the legislation. Existing legislation in Pakistan already violates Islamic law. The Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act 2014 places the legal age of marriage at 16 for women, but the recent proposal attempted to move that age up to 18 and also included serious punishment for the common practice of child marriage. That punishment would have included prison for up to two years for anyone caught engaging in child marriage[7].

In May 2017 also, the National Assembly rejected the draft Child Marriage Restraint Act for the second time: Social and gender inequality, a desire to control women’s sexuality and protect family honour, economic hardship and lack of awareness of the harmful impact of child marriage are common driving factors[8]. Pakistan’s Child Marriage Restraint Act (CMRA) 1929 sets the legal age for marriage to 16 for women and 18 for men. In May 2017, the National Assembly rejected the draft Child Marriage Restraint Act for the second time. The proposal would have increased the legal age for marriage from 16 to 18 nationwide. In February 2017, the Parliament adopted an amendment to the Penal Code that would toughen punishment against child marriage. Offenders face a minimum of five years in prison and may serve up to 10 years. They also face a fine of up to 1 million rupees ($9,547). Thus, it appears that IRP and the fundamentalist have been playing trick with the UN and global organizations strategically, as if the have been introducing the Bills, but, only the fundamentalist clerics have been stopping it in the name of Allah and Quaran, that is not questionable by any Muslim.

Mohammedan clerics declare that girls can get married by 9 years or getting puberty, whichever is earlier: According to the organization Girls Not Brides, over 21 percent of the girls in Pakistan enter into marriage before the age of 18. CII Chairman Mohammad Khan Sheerani reiterated in 2014 that girls can be married at age nine, so long as puberty is apparent, adding that attempts to revisit the issue are pointless and unnecessary. “Parliament cannot create legislation that is against the teachings of the Holy Quran or Sunnah,” Sheerani said in 2014, according to The Express Tribune. CII was created in 1962 with the express purpose of advising parliament on Islamic law. CII is also known for calling to make DNA evidence inadmissible in rape cases as recently as 2013. What CII wanted instead is to bring back the old practice of bringing in four witnesses to support rape claims. With increasing immigration, the practice of child marriage has also spread to the West, raising alarm especially in the United Kingdom. According to data from the Home Office’s Forced Marriage Unit, there were 1,485 cases of child marriage in 2012. Another government report also foundchild marriage is increasing around the world, with the rate expected to climb to 14 million child marriages a year before 2020 hits.

Law Minister Zahid Hamid accused of for “blasphemy” and fatwas issued: Law Minister Zahid Hamid had been accused by clerics of committing blasphemy due to a change in the wording of an oath taken by parliamentarians in the South Asian country. The protesters, led by Rizvi and other scholars, perceived the change in wording as representing a softening of the state’s position against members of the Ahmadi sect, who are not permitted to identify themselves as Muslims in Pakistan. The oath was hastily amended back to its original wording, but protesters held the capital under siege for weeks, demanding that Hamid resign from the cabinet. According to the agreement signed on Monday, the government will also make public an internal inquiry into how the wording of the parliamentary oath was changed. The Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) political party, led by Rizvi, has also agreed not to issue any religious edicts [fatwas] against Hamid. Blasphemy is a sensitive issue in Pakistan, and certain forms of it can carry the death sentence. Increasingly, those accused of blasphemy have also been subjected to violent attacks by mobs and charged protesters. Since 1990, at least 73 people have been killed over alleged blasphemy, according to an Al Jazeera tally. They include those accused of blasphemy, members of their families, lawyers who have defended them and judges.

Zahid Hamid, Law Minister resigned[9]: Pakistan’s federal law minister has resigned, acceding to a key demand made by thousands of protesters who have blocked a major highway into the Pakistani capital for weeks, the state radio broadcaster reported. An agreement has been signed that would see the demonstrators in Islamabad and other cities disperse, Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal told the Islamabad High Court during a hearing on 17-11-2017, Monday, ending a weeks-long standoff that threatened to escalate into countrywide violence. “On the assurance of the Chief of Army Staff, we are calling off the sit-in,” Muslim scholar and protest leader Khadim Hussain Rizvi told a crowd of around 2,500 demonstrators in Islamabad on Monday, AFP news agency reported. The agreement would also see all protesters who were arrested during the sit-in, which began on November 8, be released within three days[10]. The government will also take responsibility for paying for any damage caused to both public and private property during the protest. An inquiry will also be ordered into a government security crackdown on Saturday which saw thousands of riot police fire tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon in an attempt to disperse the protesters. Demonstrators fought back with stones, sticks and metal rods, and were able to beat back the authorities. At least five people were killed and more than 217 – mostly members of the security forces – wounded in those clashes.

How BJP has gone in the Congress way to bend the law citing Shah Bano and taking ordinance route to Jallikkattu!

Environment, Animal Husbandry department of Agriculture Ministry, Law and finally Home – ministries engaded to clear the Ordinance (19 / 20-01-2016): The sport, which goes back to the Tamil classical period, was banned following a Supreme Court order in May 2014, but spontaneous protests in Chennai have thrust the issue into limelight and sent Tamil Nadu CM O. Pannerselvam rushing to Delhi to seek an ordinance to overturn the ban[1]. In December, 2016 the court had reserved its judgment on a clutch of petitions that challenged the central government’s notification in January 2016 allowing bulls to be used in JallikattuAs an interim order, a bench led by Justice Misra had on January 13, 2016, stayed the Centre’s notification, due to which the apex court’s original order of 2014 banning Jallikattu is still in force. [2]. How all these processes took place, why the involved kept quite, delayed or played safe and all are debated again and again. Later in the evening of 20-01-2017, the Centre cleared the final legal hurdles in holding Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu over the weekend by approving the state’s draft Ordinance. The draft Ordinance, which will add a state-specific exception in the 1960 Act, passed through four ministries during the day — Environment, Animal Husbandry department of Agriculture Ministry, Law and finally Home — receiving consent from each within hours. Again, it proved the hasty, urgency and injudicious act to settle the issue. In its comments on the draft, the Environment Ministry, which administers the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, is learnt to have taken the view that Jallikattu had to be viewed in its cultural context, and that a decision on banning the sport could not be purely legal in nature. The last nod had to be given by the Ministry of Home.

Now, it is clear that the issue is political: The final clearance of the Ordinance by the Home Ministry came just a day after Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam met Prime Minister Narendra Modi and urged him to find a legal solution to the issue. Panneerselvam postponed his return to Chennai on Thursday (19-01-2017) and stayed put in the capital till Friday (20-01-2017) morning as his government prepared the draft Ordinance and handed it to the Centre. Top Tamil Nadu officials made the rounds of different ministries to hold consultations and decide the final language of the Ordinance that will put bulls on the list of performing animals in the state. A group of MPs from the state, led by Lok Sabha deputy Speaker M. Thambidurai, also met Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Environment Minister Anil Madhav Dave to press for the Ordinance. Whether the AIADMK was playing its internal politics or otherwise, the gameplan involved was exposed. With the Centre drawing flak, BJP sought to project that its government was actively engaged in resolving the issue[3].

The anti-Modi placards, sloganeering etc., are inexplicable: It is evident that sizable crowd of the “Jallikkattu” protesters were not students, but members of the radical groups like ma.ka.i.ka and its associated organizations. All the fringe Communist clusters also joined. The Muslim presence could be noted. Thus, the anti-Modi placards, sloganeering and shoutings appeared intriguing in the context. That too, several placards carried very vulgar, indecent and unparliamentary words and expressions. Why, how and for what purposes, they used, only, they have to explain. But, definitely, such aberration marred their cultural claims made on the civilization, heritage and tradition in the name of Tamil, Tamils and Tamilnadu. The separatist sloganeering also exposed the involvement of fringe elements. Asian Age reported that[4], “Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rejection of the state’s demand for a Central ordinance on jallikattu has triggered widespread anger in Tamil Nadu”. Residents geared up for massive protests on Friday (20-01-2017), with all sections of people joining students and youth fighting to save its traditional sport and preserve Tamil culture. Furious jallikattu protesters widened the canvass of the protests to include all issues in which the state’s rights were trampled. One of the students, Senthilnathan, who had gathered at the Marina asked, “If Narendra Modi is so concerned about respecting the Supreme Court, why had he opposed the apex court’s verdict to form the Cauvery Management Board?”.

Anti-national slogans were also raised: Protesting Tamil youth vowed to return the Aadhaar cards as a sign of declaration that they are no more the citizens of India. The protesters also targeted the railways blocking the trains in several parts of the state. Traders associations announced a total shutdown on Friday and cinema theatres would remain closed to express support the agitations. The Marina continued to be the epicentre of agitations for Tamil pride with the gathering of youth reaching about 90,000 for a stretch of about three kilometre on Thursday (19-01-2017) evening. The sound of waves were drowned by slogan shouting and drum beating youth, who supported jallikattu and demanded a ban on Peta, which was instrumental for jallikattu ban. There were hundreds of protests throughout the city, besides the agitations in every district and taluk of Tamil Nadu. The southern districts continued to vibrate with jallikattu protests centred around the historic city of Madurai. Besides boys and girls, children and working and housewives too joined the agitations throughout Tamil Nadu, voicing their anger against the unjust treatment to Tamil Nadu on a range of issues from the massacre of Sri Lankan Tamils to the non-formation of Cauvery Management Board[5].

Chennai had two faces in the “Jallikkatu” shows and bandhs: On 20-01-2017, the worst sufferers had been the office goers, regular teavellers and some students who attend private professional institutions. Autos and call taxis kept off the roads even as few government buses plied on the roads with improper announcement[6]. That the Banking operations took a hit with workers taking part in protests and Employees of various IT companies held placards and banners with slogans against NGO People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) etc., appeared artificial, perhaps, they too wanted publicity or showed them to be supporting for the cause with the vested interests. The “Jallikkattu” protesters purposely occupied the most-crowded junctions, bus-stands and such other places, just to get the attention of others. This only created nuisance at morning and evening hours. Many inter and intra-state trains were fully and partially cancelled while some others were diverted. The suburban EMU services ran late. In Chennai, all roads led to Marina beach with men and women, clad in black, besides children joining the protest that has transcended political and other differences. Though, the schools and colleges did not function, as leave was given to them, the office goers and regular travellers of buses and trains suffered heavily and the autos fleeced them as usual taking the opportunity.

Shah Bano and Jallikkattu: How BJP has gone in the Congress way to bend the law!

Venkaiah Naidu citing “Shah Bano” case precedence (10-01-2017)[1]: Venkaiah Naidu hinted that in the view of strong emotional connect of the people of Tamil Nadu with jallikattu, the Centre was mulling over a way out after the Supreme Court banned it. He claimed that Centre is mulling the idea of amending the law to nullify Supreme Court order on Jallikattu. “We are getting suggestions (to amend the law). After all, we did it in the Shah Bano case,” said Naidu adding[2], “But, we will have to see. We will have to discuss. We will have to weigh what court thinks.” However, Naidu was non-committal about bringing an ordinance to deal with the Supreme Court order on Jallikattu, saying[3], “I am not dealing with the subject in the government.” Speaking at the India Today Conclave South in Chennai, Venkaiah Naidu said[4], “Personally, I feel that Jallikattu is a traditional art. It is a traditional sport in Tamil Nadu. Nobody should have problem with this.” But, Naidu also added, “I don’t know whether I should be saying this as a minister.” So just like Rajiv Gandhi, the BJP has also decided to politicize the issue, by bending the law by creating another bad precedence of law. In fact, the so-called “India Today” conclave had given much focus to the “Jallikkattu” issue, calling opinion from others. Now, let us note, what the “Shah Bano” case brought out in Indian judicial, political and religious arena.

The brief of Sha Bano case[5]: Though, the details of the “Shah Bano case” are known, they are briefed here as follows[6]:

Shah Bano, who was 62 years old in 1978, was divorced by her husband using the triple talaq law.

Bano, who was left with five children, approached the court to seek justice.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had instructed Bano’s husband Mohammed Ahmed Khan to provide Rs 179 per month as maintenance.

The case reached Supreme Court, with the bench announcing a verdict in 1985, instructing that Shah Bano should be provided all the benefits which divorced women from other religious communities are entitled to.

The observations of court drew sharp reaction from conservative Muslims, who called it a violation of their religious affairs.

Fearing ire from the Muslim community, Congress government at Centre led by Rajiv Gandhi amended the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The amended legislation nullified the Supreme Court’s order.

At that time, a lot of criticism was made against Rajiv Gandhi and Congress for yielding to the Islamic fundamental forces by reversing the Supre Court judgment.

Jallikkatu issue goes in the Sha Bano route: The political solution to this public demand in case of Jallikattu is to pass an ordinance, overturning and reversing the Supreme Court ban, is well understood, but, bad in the law. The job of the apex court is to simply interpret statutes and constitution provisions. The Apex Court enters the arena of traditions, religious practices or even cricket administration, only when such issues come to the court. In the Shah Bano case, the apex court’s verdict was overturned by Parliament (which had the brute majority of the ruling party). The utopia that the voice of “the people” is supreme too works with the ruling politicians. Unfortunately, there is a thin dividing line between robust democracy and mobocracy, or mere capitulation by politicians to mass hysteria and this is what happened in the Jallikkttu case. Who has whipped up mass hysteria to generate short-term political advantage, is yet to be known clearly, though, the sudden surge has been claimed as “spontaneous and apolitical”. It is, therefore, worth recalling incidents when the brute power of elected governments was thwarted by sound legal principles, and even the power of ordinance was blunted by the apex court. Whether the “emotional blackmail”, “ideological extortion”, “cultural counter threat”, definitely, it has shown a bad way for such incited, provoked and encouraged groups again bargain, so that the judiciary becomes a mockery of democracy.

Politicians are interested in safeguarding their interests[7]: Of course, the most celebrated case is the Keshavanand Bharti case, fought so successfully by Nani Palkhiwala, which has ever since protected the basic structure of the Constitution of India. It cannot be amended by the legislature. A more recent example is from May 2002, when the Supreme Court decreed that all candidates who stand for elections must declare, via sworn affidavits, their criminal antecedents (if any), their wealth (ill begotten or not), and their education status. This was based on the voters’ right to know before they cast their vote. The Union Cabinet in its wisdom sought to nullify this verdict through a hastily drawn up ordinance in June 2002, as the entire political establishment did not want to disclose any information, or details of their candidates. But citizen activists across the nation got together and asked the then President Abdul Kalam to refuse to sign that ordinance. He had to sign since the Cabinet refused to budge, or dilute its ordinance. Hence, this ordinance (even before it could be presented to Parliament) was challenged in the Supreme Court as being un-constitutional. Denying information to voters was akin to denying freedom of expression (as casting a vote is like expressing yourself). Remember the Right to Information was passed in 2005, three years later. In March 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the said ordinance seeking to gag information about candidates was unconstitutional and hence null and void. Hence the ordinance was defeated. As for Jallikattu, it’s a wholly different animal and the polticians may bend the law again[8].

Requesting Supreme Court to delay the judgment and passing the Ordinance (20-01-2017)[9]: Hours after the Central government requested the Supreme Court to delay its judgment on the legality of Jallikattu, citing “huge unrest” in Tamil Nadu, it approved a draft Ordinance by the state government to make an exception for bulls in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. Earlier, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told a bench led by Justice Dipak Misra that there were “immense problems” in Tamil Nadu due to the interim ban on Jallikattu and that the circumstances warranted delaying the judgment at least by a week. “If this court pronounces the judgment in one way or another, it (judgment) would inflame passions…there is already social unrest in the state. The Centre and the state are in talks to find a way out in the matter and our request is that the court should not deliver the judgment and hold back for a while,” submitted the AG. At this, Justice Misra asked Rohatgi how many days he wanted the judgment to be delayed. “At least for a week,” replied AG. To this, the judge responded[10]: “Okay.”

GST – update: the dual control percentages decided, draft laws to be approved and classification codified on the next meeting to be held on February.18, 2017!

More than Rs.1.5 crores divided into 90% and 10% and the 10% into 50-50 between States and Centre: The Centre and the states managed to hammer out a broad consensus over the contentious issue of division of administrative control over tax assessees at the ninth meeting of GST Council Monday (16-01-2017) though it will be at the cost of a three-month delay in the rollout of the proposed indirect tax regime[1]. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said 90 per cent of tax assessees below the annual turnover threshold of Rs 1.5 crore will be under the control of states and the remaining 10 per cent will be under the Centre’s jurisdiction[2]. For a turnover of Rs 1.5 crore and higher, there will be equal division of assessees between the states and the Centre[3]. Calling it a significant headway, Jaitley said[4], “The states would do 50 per cent of assessees above Rs 1.5 crore turnover and 90 per cent of less than Rs 1.5 crore turnover. The Centre would get to assess 50 per cent of above Rs 1.5 crore turnover and 10 per cent of less than Rs 1.5 crore turnover.” 90% of all assessees with a turnover of Rs. 1,5 crore or less will be sesses for scrutiny and audit by the state authorities, for the remaining 10% by the centre[5]. However, if there is a dispute between states over the place of supply, the Centre will have the power to administer those assessees. In all situations, the Centre will retain the power to collect this tax[6].

West Bengal and Kerala opposing, and Tamilnadu supporting the ratio: Some ministers, including West Bengal Finance Minister Amit Mitra, are learnt to have objected to the 90:10 ratio of division between the states and the Centre, instead seeking exclusive control over all tax assessees below the annual turnover threshold of Rs 1.5 crore[7]. It had argued that states did not have experience in dealing with service tax and states led by Bengal saw it as intrusion into their domain[8]. Mitra later told reporters this agreement pertained to services only. Mitra said 13 pending issues were raised by him — such as the definition of agriculture and definition of deemed exports — were being referred to the law ministry, which will revert by the first week of February, 2017. Left with little choice after holding out for nearly three hours, West Bengal finance minister Amit Mitra submitted a dissent note. The agreement hammered out was based on a proposal by Tamilnadu[9]. “As far as the dual control is concerned, the Centre has come, finally, very close to the position that the empowered committee had taken, where under Rs 1.5 crore, all goods, all deemed goods, and the decision taken on which I had to put a dissent, that 90 per cent of all goods and services will be with the states. Only 10 per cent of services are with the Centre, on which I had to dissent because I wanted 100 per cent. So we have come very close to 100 per cent but unless it is 100 per cent, I was constrained to dissent, because I wanted that extra 10 per cent,” Mitra told reporters after the meeting[10]. Kerala Finance Minister Thomas Isaac, who left the Council meeting early, said that there was no decision and an agreement was being worked upon. “The discussions are still going on. There is no agreement as to how the taxes will be administered… territorial waters, taxation powers will be delegated to the states… some compromise will be worked out. Below Rs 1.5 crore could be under the administrative control of states. Centre would have certain limited amount of audit functions that could be one possible compromise. Discussions are going on,” he told reporters. On the dissent by Mitra, Jaitley said it was confined to the extent of the 90:10 division between states and the Centre, and on other issues, he was in agreement with all other GST Council members[11]. Amit Mitra termed 90 per cent of the assessees being with states as a victory to protect small traders[12]. As per the agreement reached earlier, businesses earning upto `20 lakh in a year will be exempt from GST. For the North-eastern states this limit will be Rs 10 lakh[13].

Nautical Taxes – GST on the economic activities at the coasts and on the seas: The Council also resolved a logjam over the right to tax economic activities within 12 nautical miles from India’s coasts. The Centre also gave the right to tax economic activities within 12 nautical miles to coastal states, even as it will be the territory of the Union. At present, these states have the right to tax these activities[14]. The government is constitutionally mandated as per the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, passed by Parliament last year, to roll out the indirect tax regime by September 16 this year, 2017. On the issue of taxation powers in offshore areas, which was raised by states in the previous GST Council meeting, Jaitley said states will have taxation powers up to 12 nautical miles in offshore areas. Since the GST will miss the April 1 deadline, the indirect tax receipts estimates in the upcoming Budget for 2017-18 will include a combination of excise and service tax for three months and GST for the next nine months, a senior government official said.

Definition of “territory” has to be decided specifically: The definition of ‘territory’ in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Model Law proposes to push the “physical boundaries” of India that could create aberrations for transactions on the high seas, according to a leading trade group. The territory of ‘India,’ for the purpose of the levy and collection of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) proposed to be collected by the Centre on all inter-State supplies of goods and services and to be roughly equal to Central GST plus State GST, is proposed to be 200 nautical miles, FIEO Director General and CEO Ajay Sahai told the Empowered Committee of State Finance Ministers. This compares with the 12 nautical miles plus specified structures up to 200 nautical miles as specified in the Customs Act. The difference can create aberrations, Sahai told the meeting chaired by West Bengal Finance Minister Amit Mitra. For example, sales on the high seas between 12 and 200 nautical miles could get taxed twice to the IGST— once as a supply and later at the time of import, Mr. Sahai said. The model law also lacks clarity on the taxation of supplies terminating and originating in territorial waters and in the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone beyond 12 nautical miles, according to FIEO.

The draft laws are to be approved on February 18, 2017: The changes would be incorporated in the draft legislations relating to Integrated GST (IGST), state GST (SGST) and Central GST (CGST), following which they would be shared with the Council at its next meeting on February 18, 2017. Citing that the whole process will take time till March, Jaitley said that July 1 will be a “more realistic date” to roll out GST. “…once they are free from making the drafts, the officials who are lending technical support will start working out the fitment of rates in various slabs. This exercise will, in all probability, take us into the month of March. The ministers and Council then assessed the realistic date by when the three important things pending — final draft legislation and rules, secondly, approval of these by the legislative bodies and fitment of rates can take place. I requested the ministers to give their opinion about the realistic dates and there was a broad view that July 1 appears to be more realistic,” Jaitley said. He said since it is a transactional tax, it can be introduced any time. The Council members felt that industry and trade should be given some adequate notice and once the rates are decided, the systems of GSTN will have to be modified suitably, he said.

Discussion about “classification,” penalty etc: Also, the penal arrest provisions, which were part of the draft law, have been diluted. Officials said default in payment of taxes amounting up to Rs 2 crore will be a bailable offence. The arrest powers will be invoked only in cases of criminal offences like forgery and tax not deposited in government coffers. Tax experts said that the consensus on cross empowerment and a delayed rollout date has ended uncertainty and will give enough preparation time to the industry. “Resolution of contentious issues such as dual control in today’s meeting signifies the most decisive step that we have seen on the GST front in the past three months. The announcement that GST rollout would be from July 1 instead of April 1 is welcome as it ends the anxiety of the industry to have a firm rollout date in place,” M S Mani, Senior Director, Indirect Tax, Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP said. Harishanker Subramaniam, National Leader — Indirect Tax, EY India, said, “It’s indeed a very positive development and takes the GST journey forward. What remains now are the rates for various goods and services which I am sure will be decided in March 2017.” A bureaucrats’ panel is working on “classification”— a comprehensive, if not exhaustive, list specifying the tax rate that each good and service will attract[15]. “The officials will start working out on the fitment of the rates on the various slabs,” Jaitley said[16]. “This exercise will take us well into the month of March. The broad view was that July 1 appears to be more realistic (date for rolling out GST). Since it is a transactional tax, it can be introduced at any time of the year,” he said. GST is expected to transform India into a single market, boost revenues through better compliance and a simpler procedure[17]. The power to levy and collect Integrated-GST, a tax on inter-state movement of goods and services, will lie with the Centre but by special provisions in law, states will also be cross-empowered[18].